Cooperative of Independents

[David Starr]

Some of us made an announcement yesterday about a new group we established. This is a new endeavor for us, with the overarching goal of giving independent software developers a place to be vetted for quality of work and professionalism.

 

We recognize that this initiative may draw some criticism, but we have also been stunned by the interest in the idea. There is clearly a need in the world for the model where developers can vouch for each other's work. That's the core of this idea, really, and a fundamental one in the discussion of software craftsmanship.

 

Feedback is certainly welcome.

 

The Software Craftsman Cooperative

 

Some posts explaining the intitiative.

 

First Announcement

Follow Up Announcement (concerning membership)

--
David Starr
Guild 3 Software, Principal Craftsman
208.577.7000
guild3.com | Training: pluralsight.com

[James E Taylor]

Fantastic idea.

Guilds / Professional bodies seem to have passed our industry by and yet they have proved so powerful for other crafts/professions.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "software_craftsmanship" group.
To post to this group, send email to software_cr...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to software_craftsma...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/software_craftsmanship?hl=en.

[David White]

Good on you, David, for seeing it through to this stage. It's a great idea. I wish you well.

regards,
david (Auckland, NZ)

2010/1/15 David Starr <da...@guild3.com>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "software_craftsmanship" group.
To post to this group, send email to software_cr...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to software_craftsma...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/software_craftsmanship?hl=en.

--
Most of my emails are not worth printing, but if you do print, don't feel guilty. One tree, after eating CO2 for many years, yields typically 80-90,000 sheets of paper.

[Esko Luontola]

Sounds interesting. Remember to report back to this list after you
have got some experiences. Good luck!

[David Starr]

Thanks for the positive feedback guys.

 

Just the last 2 days have caused a significant tweaking of our ideas and ways of doing business. Lots of community feedback and nothing terribly negative, so that's great. One interesting thing that we can already see is an appreciation by clients that the members have been vouched for by other people they trust.

 

That's how it is suppossed to work!

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Esko Luontola <esko.l...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sounds interesting. Remember to report back to this list after you
have got some experiences. Good luck!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "software_craftsmanship" group.
To post to this group, send email to software_cr...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to software_craftsma...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/software_craftsmanship?hl=en.

[Esko Luontola]

I've been thinking, that how to bootstrap such a guild, when you
haven't personally worked with many people with high enough skills to
be accepted into the guild (like in my situation). Maybe some
apprentice scheme like this would work:

Official members of the guild are titled Journeymen (and Masters, if
any). When some person wants to join the guild, he goes through a
regular interview process, after passing which he will be called
Apprentice.

When the guild gets a project from a client, most of the workers will
be Journeymen, but also one or two Apprentices may join the project at
a time. The first few projects will be a test for the Apprentice,
during which time the Journeymen who work with him will get an idea of
his skills. When enough many Journeymen accept the Apprentice to the
guild (and nobody opposes it), then he will be promoted to a
Journeyman.

The number of Apprentices per project is minimized, so that even in
the worst case (if the Apprentice is a failure) the Journeymen can
save the project and the reputation of the guild will not suffer. An
Apprentice can be kicked out of the guild even if just one Journeyman
opposes him. The goal is to have very high quality requirements for
the Journeymen - the clients should be able to trust that any one of
them will finish a project successfully, and the guild will get a good
reputation.

[Esko Luontola]

I once read somewhere, that to keep the level of skill in a company at
the same level or higher as previously, you need to hire people who
are better than half of the existing people in the company. If you
hire people who are better than the worst person in the company, then
the average skill level of the company will gradually decrease.

Would somebody remember the paper where that was said?

[James E Taylor]

Wikipedia's entry for guild is very interesting.

However, it seems to fly in the face of what has made technology what
it is today.

Guilds were cartels: they kept knowledge of the craft secret and only
promoted apprentices to journeymen once they could be trusted to keep
the guild's secrets. They were also state sanctioned monopolies.

Free software, collaboration etc all exist at the other end of the
spectrum from guilds.

Whilst wishing to retain the "craftsman" part, I wonder whether the
idea of a guild is really fit for purpose today.

[Esko Luontola]

On Jan 17, 2:15 am, James E Taylor <james.e.tay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Whilst wishing to retain the "craftsman" part, I wonder whether the  
> idea of a guild is really fit for purpose today.

True, the word "guild" might carry negative historical baggage. The
word "cooperative" sounds much more positive.

[Ron Jeffries]

Hello, Esko. On Saturday, January 16, 2010, at 7:20:16 PM, you
wrote:

Just do the math?

Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
www.xprogramming.com/blog
Testing quality into a program is like spinning straw into gold.
-- George Cameron.

[Dave Smith]

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Esko Luontola <esko.l...@gmail.com> wrote:

I once read somewhere, that to keep the level of skill in a company at
the same level or higher as previously, you need to hire people who
are better than half of the existing people in the company. If you
hire people who are better than the worst person in the company, then
the average skill level of the company will gradually decrease.

Aside from confusing median and mean, this assumes that a company
doesn't de-skill people once they're hired. Sadly, in some organizations
the average skill level gradually decreases all by itself.

Dave

[Mark Nijhof]

Agreed, just because technology moves forward, so if your people are
not learning they automatically move backwards. You can also see this
in how fast (or slow) new technologies are being adapted.

-Mark

[Mark Nijhof]

adapted == adopted :)

[David Starr]

So, some clarity on the cooperative vs. a guild.

 

A Guild in the discussion of software craftsmanship as it has been used, would not be this group. Some of the members of this cooperative might themselves be guilds.

 

A guild would be a small company in which development career ladders function as stated in this thread. 8th light and a few others have pioneered this vision. One member of the cooperative, Guild 3 Software, was founded to do the same. I am a founding partner of Guild 3, and use the term "Principal Software Craftsman" on my card.

 

So, this would be a cooperative of independent journeyman and guilds, to carry the metaphore. Each guild would have it's own way of doing business.

[Enrique Comba Riepenhausen]

Hello David,

On 17 Jan 2010, at 17:40, David Starr wrote:

A Guild in the discussion of software craftsmanship as it has been used, would not be this group. Some of the members of this cooperative might themselves be guilds.

Guilds in the past united (and controlled) various Journeymen and Workshops. When guilds started to emerge in Europe (this is not a thorough explanation) they where created to control journeymen that came into a particular place so that they would not offer their services to wages below the ones of the guild. Later on they evolved further basically asphyxiating the various workshops and journeymen, but that is another story. ;)

A guild would be a small company in which development career ladders function as stated in this thread. 8th light and a few others have pioneered this vision. One member of the cooperative, Guild 3 Software, was founded to do the same. I am a founding partner of Guild 3, and use the term "Principal Software Craftsman" on my card.

I cannot agree with this at all. A guild binds together different workshops (read companies, studios, etc for now a days view) and journeymen to control them. 8th Light, Obtiva, Eden and the many more companies that are practicing software craftsmanship studios are exactly that studios and by no means guilds. As good craftsmen the craftsmen form the  afore mentioned studios share their knowledge with the wider community of professionals.

As opposed to a guild system (or cooperative in the case of the SSC) our relationships happen organically. Most of them happen because we know each other, work together, share craftsmen and ideas.

I am not sure how the SSC works, so I cannot comment on it :)

Best regards,

Enrique

[Ilja Preuß]

OTOH, it also ignores the fact that people can learn.

I'd rather want someone who's below average, but eager to learn, than
an above average who thinks he already knows enough.

2010/1/17, Dave Smith <davew...@gmail.com>:

[David Starr]

Interesting. I'll have to review a bit more of my medevil history :)

 

You may very well be right.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "software_craftsmanship" group.
To post to this group, send email to software_cr...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to software_craftsma...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/software_craftsmanship?hl=en.

[James E Taylor]

The Guild thing is interesting, though.

Look at lawyers and doctors.  They operate strong closed shops similar to the original Guilds.  The professionals themselves cooperate in keeping it a closed shop for the common good.  Although the closed shop has some control over its members, membership  is beneficial on the whole.

Technology, however, is the first truly globalised craft/profession and finding parallels with these old world structures is difficult.

Could we create a closed shop in software?  Personally I doubt it.  Software has been commoditised (before its time IMO) so price is deemed to be the determining factor when buying it in.  The quality of the craftsmanship is lost on your average manager or technology buyer.  If we set up a guild, it would be difficult to pitch to those people that we alone are the masters of the craft.  Other people would undercut us on price and that would be all that mattered.

Sorry if I sound negative.  I'm learning what SC means to people and I'm interested in finding out how my own thoughts fit into that however I think a strict analogy with historical guilds isn't possible.

[Mark Nijhof]

Times change as well as the meaning of words. Perhaps the meaning of Guilds is changing?

-Mark

Sent from my iPhone

[James E Taylor]

I'm sure there are terms out there we could use that don't need to be reinvented?  And when it comes to the power of closed shops, times haven't changed much.

[David Starr]

I wouldn't think any SC guild would need to assert they are THE masters of anything to be effective. I think the power in the closed guild model is the simple idea that people of professional integrity, wisdom, and skill are recommending others with similar values and qualities.

[gustin]

The only problem I have with this model is how the original members were chosen, most seem to be part of the same company? 

It feels too closed and the initial members may recommend people they know or are close to, reducing the credibility and objectivity of the group. 

Limiting to 5 new members a month that are chosen by existing members feels too much like a club or closed network in my opinion. 

~)o,

gustin

  . . : entryway : . .
software development
   www.entryway.net
     888-595-4227

     Gustin Prudner
 office: 540.745.5279
  cell: 540.904.4854
   fax: 540.301.5084

[James E Taylor]

But of course, that is how the original guilds worked....

It seems to me that the best way to handle this would be to de-centralise: guilds would spring up in geographical areas where people get together to create one; they have their own membership rules etc (maybe guided by some central guidelines) and seek affiliation with other guilds.

Although it might sound like a club or closed network; I'd only feel comfortable vouching for someone's skillset and modus operandi if I had worked with them.

[gustin]

But of course, that is how the original guilds worked....

Maybe that is why they aren't around anymore :-)

 

It seems to me that the best way to handle this would be to de-centralise: guilds would spring up in geographical areas where people get together to create one; they have their own membership rules etc (maybe guided by some central guidelines) and seek affiliation with other guilds.

I agree having numerous "guilds" would help, it is more of a problem when they are first starting out. 

Although it might sound like a club or closed network; I'd only feel comfortable vouching for someone's skillset and modus operandi if I had worked with them.

One benefit of this guild is advertised as providing value to companies wanting to find skilled software developers that they can trust. 

Having a network of friends that have only worked together seems misleading and limiting in growth in my opinion.  

~)o

gustin

[Al Tenhundfeld]

I doubt a vouch system, by itself, would ever work. For personal or professional reasons, people will end up vouching for less than worthy new members. It can be hard to tell a friend or client (or boss) they aren't good enough.

That's why in most guild systems you see an objective entrance test and/or a forced apprenticeship. 

I'm not judging the idea of guilds, just pointing out things get complicated when membership is based solely on opinion.

Al

[James E Taylor]

Yes but how else do you ascertain someone's skillset, professional approach etc?

Interviews and tests are flawed -- the reason why we're discussing this.

And anyhow, I've worked with a very large number of people in the industry but there are very few -- if any -- I would lend my support to in something like this (one, perhaps two people).  So choosing people you've worked with doesn't have to make this a group of drinking buddies.

[James E Taylor]

That's a good point.  I don't know how you formulate the test though.  It would have to be a masterpiece-type test.  Not a sit down at a computer and remember how many uses of the static keyword there are in c++ test.

[Adam Sroka]

+1

Laurent Bossavit tried a vouch system for Agile and it barely got off
the ground. You can see it here: http://wevouchfor.org/

In principle I think it is a good idea, but I have no idea how you
would implement it successfully. Laurent is an exceptionally smart guy
but I think the result is less than spectacular.

[gustin]

I think local trumps all.

As long as the guild is advertised as being the top-notch, most skilled and trusted software folk limited to City X or Region X verse an International Guild of Software Folk. 

I agree working with people is the best judge of skill and character, it severely limits the group though to the core people who started it and who they have worked with, making it exclusive. 

~)o

gustin

  . . : entryway : . .
software development
   www.entryway.net
     888-595-4227

     Gustin Prudner
 office: 540.745.5279
  cell: 540.904.4854
   fax: 540.301.5084

[Enrique Comba Riepenhausen]

On 19 Jan 2010, at 19:03, gustin wrote:

Having a network of friends that have only worked together seems misleading and limiting in growth in my opinion.  

I am not sure this is really a limiting factor. I would only vouch for people I have worked with that I know have a deep understanding of crafting software. That is, people that don't only code, but as well have certain ethics and working practices that I share.

Having said that the number of people I would vouch is limited in fact. One of the reasons I want to spend more time (hopefully this year) wandering around a bit to see other craftsmen and work with them. I believe this is a brilliant way to get to know other craftsmen's work ethics and practices and would lead me to vouch for them.

Enrique

[Enrique Comba Riepenhausen]

On 19 Jan 2010, at 19:17, gustin wrote:

I think local trumps all.

Agree

I agree working with people is the best judge of skill and character, it severely limits the group though to the core people who started it and who they have worked with, making it exclusive. 

One of the reasons I believe visiting other craftsmen is so important. Not for the vouching though, but to help expand your community and relationships in the craftsmanship community.

Enrique

[Corey Haines]

I think the conversation is slowly heading to here, but I wanted to
chime in a bit. I think there is an important thing being missed here.

It is a good thing that there is a small limited group of developers
who trust each other, are willing to work with each other, yet
maintain their autonomy as independents. I've talked before about the
'A-Team' model, where people of varying skillsets would get together
to solve difficult problems, then head back to their own stuff until
needed.

While I strongly dislike the name, the word 'THE' implies a singular
body and an authority that I don't think anyone has, having a group of
people who gather and work together based on a shared, common
interpretation of the software craftsmanship principles has the
potential for a lot of benefit. I would love to see more of these rise
up in different areas. Regions are irrelevant these days, as, while
in-person pairing is still the best, we can be effective in a remote
situation, as well. Instead, let's focus on common beliefs and ways of
working. When you have something like SC, it is inevitable and, in my
opinion, desired to have separate schools of thought arise around the
manifesto and the principles surrounding it. Finding like-minded
people and forming a cluster can help raise the bar for all involved.

Is there a chance that one of these becomes a group of drinking
buddies? Sure. Is that a problem? I don't think so. Work speaks for
itself. Also, as more of these clusters / cooperatives appear, there
will be ones that get weeded out and there will be ones that grow into
a formidable entity. Just look at the existing, formal companies.

I've been talking to some companies about forming similar loose
partnerships, as well, with the intent of forming very loose,
highly-trust-based clusters that can complement each other's
deficiencies and help each other fill those holes when approached by a
client.

So, let's not get caught up on the name of 'guild.' I'm pretty sure
that we all agree it is bad. What is even worse is relating it to the
historical version of a guild, as SC is not intended to 'bring back
the old ways,' but rather create a useful metaphor that can be used to
help guide us in our journey towards becoming better developers.

Coming back to the name; I would love to see the name changed to
something that minimizes the idea of ownership of the ideas. 'A
Software Craftsman Cooperative' sounds a bit wishy-washy, but surely
there is something that can be used that isn't 'THE'

-Corey

--
http://www.coreyhaines.com
The Internet's Premiere source of information about Corey Haines

[Steven Smith]

But unfortunately others might not share your high standards, and in theory their votes would still count, right?

Lurking and hoping someone comes up with a magic bullet but not holding my breath.

Steve

Steve Smith
http://SteveSmithBlog.com/
http://twitter.com/ardalis

[Ryan Eastabrook]

All of this is based on vetting from your peers. Which is to say I
vouch for person X who I know holds a high standard based on his
development principles. Person X is then presented to the coop which
is then able to vet him individually, and then it's presented to the
group in the form of a vote....is this perfect? Maybe not, that's
arguable....however, we are thinking it makes more sense than
accepting applications from anonymous people which we, as individuals,
have not worked with or take responsibility for. Hopefully, through
this process we at least maintain a certain level of professional
integrity (the same that we hold in our individual entities or
companies).

re: votes. We have tossed around the idea of voting/non-voting
members, and settled on the simple approach in the beginning, everyone
is a voting member. As we've seen already, it's hard enough to make
decisions based on the current 6 members as a group, does this make
sense when we have 30 members? Not sure, we won't know until we
revisit our process in the coming weeks.

On Jan 19, 4:30 pm, Steven Smith <ssmith.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But unfortunately others might not share your high standards, and in theory
> their votes would still count, right?
>
> Lurking and hoping someone comes up with a magic bullet but not holding my
> breath.
> Steve
>

> >>>> On 18. jan. 2010, at 00.17, James E Taylor <james.e.tay...@gmail.com>

> >>>> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Mark Nijhof < <mark.nij...@gmail.com>
> >>>> mark.nij...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> adapted == adopted :)
>

> >>>>> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 2:26 AM, Mark Nijhof < <mark.nij...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> mark.nij...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> > Agreed, just because technology moves forward, so if your people are
> >>>>> > not learning they automatically move backwards. You can also see this
> >>>>> > in how fast (or slow) new technologies are being adapted.
>
> >>>>> > -Mark
>

> >>>>> > On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 2:24 AM, Dave Smith < <davewsm...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> davewsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> >> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Esko Luontola <<esko.luont...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> esko.luont...@gmail.com>

> >>>>> >> wrote:
>
> >>>>> >>> I once read somewhere, that to keep the level of skill in a company
> >>>>> at
> >>>>> >>> the same level or higher as previously, you need to hire people who
> >>>>> >>> are better than half of the existing people in the company. If you
> >>>>> >>> hire people who are better than the worst person in the company,
> >>>>> then
> >>>>> >>> the average skill level of the company will gradually decrease.
>
> >>>>> >> Aside from confusing median and mean, this assumes that a company
> >>>>> >> doesn't de-skill people once they're hired. Sadly, in some
> >>>>> organizations
> >>>>> >> the average skill level gradually decreases all by itself.
>
> >>>>> >> Dave
>
> >>>>> >> --
> >>>>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >>>>> Groups
> >>>>> >> "software_craftsmanship" group.
> >>>>> >> To post to this group, send email to
> >>>>> >> <software_cr...@googlegroups.com>
> >>>>> software_cr...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>>> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> >>>>> >> <software_craftsmanship%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> >>>>> software_craftsma...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>>> >> For more options, visit this group at
> >>>>> >> <http://groups.google.com/group/software_craftsmanship?hl=en>
> >>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/software_craftsmanship?hl=en.
>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >>>>> Groups "software_craftsmanship" group.
> >>>>> To post to this group, send email to
> >>>>> <software_cr...@googlegroups.com>
> >>>>> software_cr...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> >>>>> <software_craftsmanship%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> >>>>> software_craftsma...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/software_craftsmanship?hl=en>

> >>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/software_craftsmanship?hl=en.
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> David Starr
> >>>> Guild 3 Software, Principal Craftsman
> >>>> 208.577.7000

> >>>> <http://guild3.com/>guild3.com | Training: <http://pluralsight.com/>

> >>>> pluralsight.com
> >>>> --
> >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >>>> Groups "software_craftsmanship" group.
> >>>> To post to this group, send
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[DocOnDev]

To the general topic:

I was quite put off by the announcement of "The Software Craftsmanship
Cooperative". I've yet to reconcile all of the reasons why I had that
reaction. But it feels like an opportunistic grab at a meme. There is
no reference to the SC manifesto. There are a new set of values
statements. It feels closed and exclusive. It does not appear to be a
loose collaboration of independents, rather a select few with a common
vested interest.

To Steve's comment about other people's votes counting:

As a member of a group that does not vote consistent with your
standards, you've the option to affect change either by influencing
the group or by taking your vote elsewhere. In either case, everyone
is better off. If you were "right", the other group will eventually
fade away. Or perhaps both groups will be successful in their own
right. And, of course, there is the chance your new group will not
endure.

Ultimately, the market will vet out who meets the needs and who does
not. This in mind, it is entirely possible that a group of fastidious
coders focused on highest quality might not do as well in some regions
or markets as a group of "pragmatics" (forgive me) focused on
delivery.

So while I hold the ideal that the cleanest coders would rise as the
others fall, I hold the expectation that markets are far more complex
than this and groups will need to adjust and adapt in order to
survive.

I don't think there is a silver bullet here. I think there is
opportunity for openness, cooperation/collaboration, and improvement.

Michael "Doc" Norton
http://docondev.blogspot.com/ - blog
DocOnDev - twitter

On Jan 19, 6:30 pm, Steven Smith <ssmith.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But unfortunately others might not share your high standards, and in theory
> their votes would still count, right?
>
> Lurking and hoping someone comes up with a magic bullet but not holding my
> breath.
> Steve
>

> >>>> On 18. jan. 2010, at 00.17, James E Taylor <james.e.tay...@gmail.com>

> >>>> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Mark Nijhof < <mark.nij...@gmail.com>
> >>>> mark.nij...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> adapted == adopted :)
>

> >>>>> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 2:26 AM, Mark Nijhof < <mark.nij...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> mark.nij...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> > Agreed, just because technology moves forward, so if your people are
> >>>>> > not learning they automatically move backwards. You can also see this
> >>>>> > in how fast (or slow) new technologies are being adapted.
>
> >>>>> > -Mark
>

> >>>>> > On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 2:24 AM, Dave Smith < <davewsm...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> davewsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> >> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Esko Luontola <<esko.luont...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> esko.luont...@gmail.com>

> >>>>> >> wrote:
>
> >>>>> >>> I once read somewhere, that to keep the level of skill in a company
> >>>>> at
> >>>>> >>> the same level or higher as previously, you need to hire people who
> >>>>> >>> are better than half of the existing people in the company. If you
> >>>>> >>> hire people who are better than the worst person in the company,
> >>>>> then
> >>>>> >>> the average skill level of the company will gradually decrease.
>
> >>>>> >> Aside from confusing median and mean, this assumes that a company
> >>>>> >> doesn't de-skill people once they're hired. Sadly, in some
> >>>>> organizations
> >>>>> >> the average skill level gradually decreases all by itself.
>
> >>>>> >> Dave
>
> >>>>> >> --
> >>>>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >>>>> Groups
> >>>>> >> "software_craftsmanship" group.
> >>>>> >> To post to this group, send email to
> >>>>> >> <software_cr...@googlegroups.com>
> >>>>> software_cr...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>>> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> >>>>> >> <software_craftsmanship%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> >>>>> software_craftsma...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>>> >> For more options, visit this group at
> >>>>> >> <http://groups.google.com/group/software_craftsmanship?hl=en>
> >>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/software_craftsmanship?hl=en.
>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >>>>> Groups "software_craftsmanship" group.
> >>>>> To post to this group, send email to
> >>>>> <software_cr...@googlegroups.com>
> >>>>> software_cr...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> >>>>> <software_craftsmanship%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com>

> >>>>> software_craftsma...@googlegroups.com.
> >>>>> For more options, visit this group at
> >>>>> <http://groups.google.com/group/software_craftsmanship?hl=en>

> >>>>>http://groups.google.com/group/software_craftsmanship?hl=en.
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> David Starr
> >>>> Guild 3 Software, Principal Craftsman
> >>>> 208.577.7000

> >>>> <http://guild3.com/>guild3.com | Training: <http://pluralsight.com/>

> >>>> pluralsight.com
> >>>> --
> >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >>>> Groups "software_craftsmanship" group.
> >>>> To post to this group, send
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[David Starr]

This is a great thread.

All of us in this cooperative agree that we are finding our way here. We are undergoing a period of change and finding the right way to move forward.

Is the name meant to imply we are the world's greatest thing since sliced bread? No.
Does it? Maybe. That's a concern.
Frankly, one thing that seems to be recurring as slightly negative is the name. We agree that the name implies an exclusivity of a controlling global body. Not our intent. Perhaps that will change in time, but there are several other things we need to get a handle on before something like that comes up.

Is this a group of drinking buddies? No.
It is a group of professional developers who have chosen to work together when possible, share business opportunities at other times. Have I had a drink with some of the other guys? OK, yeah :)

Are we all from the same place? No.
There are several of us in Idaho and several in Oregon. That said, we do want to add diversity to the group. We are already getting application packages from candidates who actually meet the criteria we set forth on the website.

Do we choose our friends? No.
Hell, I hate Ryan. I kid, I kid.
No, we choose people who we know we share values with. Integrity of character and professional practice.

Is the cooperative encourage a closed circle? Perhaps.
Several people have contacted us who clearly are not a good fit and not because they aren't good developers, but because none of the existing members knows their work. In order to be voted in, a candidate MUST be sponsored by an existing member. Is that elitist? Is it exclusionary? Yes. It is also the only way I am going to put MY professional reputation on the line by vouching for some one's quality, skill, and integrity. Thankfully, we all know people all over the world and are hoping to attract members from other places.

The intent is not a geographic focus, but there is definitely a focus on familiarity.

To post to this group, send email to software_cr...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to software_craftsma...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/software_craftsmanship?hl=en.

--
David Starr
Guild 3 Software, Principal Craftsman
208.577.7000

guild3.com | Training: pluralsight.com

[kelly french]

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Esko Luontola <esko.l...@gmail.com> wrote:

An
Apprentice can be kicked out of the guild even if just one Journeyman
opposes him. The goal is to have very high quality requirements for
the Journeymen - the clients should be able to trust that any one of
them will finish a project successfully, and the guild will get a good
reputation.

I would change it so you need 2 or more votes to kick you out.  That way a single person can't ruin a promising career for nothing more than a personality conflict.

[thomas schreiber]

Regarding the terminology, I much prefer the collective over
cooperative. Only then is it clear that there is an underlying non-
monetary movement taking place.

From wikipedia "A collective is a group of entities that share or are
motivated by at least one common issue or interest, or work together
on a specific project(s) to achieve a common objective. Collectives
are also characterised by attempts to share and exercise political and
social power and to make decisions on a consensus-driven and
egalitarian basis. Collectives differ from cooperatives in that they
are not necessarily focused upon an economic benefit or saving (but
can be that as well)."

I'm also very fond of the word artisan, partly because I studied fine
arts in college and not computer science. In my path, creative
thinking, architecture, and philosophy was far more beneficial in the
beginning, and it was better to save the math, science and business
for later. One of the first things I was taught is that creating works
in a new medium simply requires determined (obsessive) practice,
reflection, skepticism, and research -- it's not an inherited trait.

This is my first post and I must say -- great list! Looking forward to
2010.

-Tom

On Jan 19, 12:36 pm, Corey Haines <coreyhai...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, let's not get caught up on the name of 'guild.' I'm pretty sure
> that we all agree it is bad. What is even worse is relating it to the
> historical version of a guild, as SC is not intended to 'bring back
> the old ways,' but rather create a useful metaphor that can be used to
> help guide us in our journey towards becoming better developers.
>
> Coming back to the name; I would love to see the name changed to
> something that minimizes the idea of ownership of the ideas. 'A

> Software Craftsman Cooperative' sounds a bitwishy-washy, but surely

> there is something that can be used that isn't 'THE'
>
> -Corey
>
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Enrique Comba Riepenhausen
>
>
>
> <eco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 19 Jan 2010, at 19:17, gustin wrote:
>
> > I think local trumps all.
>
> > Agree
>
> > I agree working with people is the best judge of skill and character, it
> > severely limits the group though to the core people who started it and who
> > they have worked with, making it exclusive.
>
> > One of the reasons I believe visiting other craftsmen is so important. Not
> > for the vouching though, but to help expand your community and relationships
> > in the craftsmanship community.
> > Enrique
>
> > ~)o
> > gustin
> >   . . : entryway : . .
> > software development
> >    www.entryway.net
> >      888-595-4227
>
> >      Gustin Prudner
> >  office: 540.745.5279
> >   cell: 540.904.4854
> >    fax: 540.301.5084
>

> > On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 2:09 PM, James E Taylor <james.e.tay...@gmail.com>

> >>>>> On 18. jan. 2010, at 00.17, James E Taylor <james.e.tay...@gmail.com>

> ...
>
> read more »